Comparison of Common Methods in Dynamic Response Predictions of Rotor Systems with Malfunctions

<table class="table-group" id="tab5"><tr><td><table class="table"><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="2"><hr/></td></tr><tr class="thead"><td align="left">Method</td><td align="center">Time (s)</td></tr><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="2"><hr/></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Newmark, CMS order 5</td><td align="center">6.49</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Newmark, CMS order 10</td><td align="center">8.85</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Newmark, CMS order 20</td><td align="center">10.48</td></tr><tr><td align="left">IHB, <svg height="8.91176pt" id="M164" style="vertical-align:-0.2130003pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.69876 34.4461 8.91176" width="34.4461pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.0135,0,0,-0.0135,0,0)"><path d="M393 379C402 394 400 411 393 422C384 437 365 448 348 448C301 448 237 372 186 285H182L193 335C210 408 205 448 178 448C150 448 80 402 29 344L45 321C80 355 114 373 122 373C128 373 130 365 124 330C106 228 76 98 50 -5L57 -12C82 -5 112 3 132 6L172 203C196 256 234 304 254 329C275 355 293 367 306 367C318 367 330 360 342 348C347 343 355 343 365 350S386 367 393 379Z" id="g113-115"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="422" vert-adv-y="422"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0135,0,0,-0.0135,9.505,0)"><path d="M535 323V373H52V323H535ZM535 138V188H52V138H535Z" id="g117-34"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="587" vert-adv-y="587"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0135,0,0,-0.0135,21.242,0)"><path d="M412 140C382 77 369 73 315 73H129L270 222C362 320 402 379 402 466C402 571 322 635 234 635C177 635 130 609 99 576L42 495L64 475C90 514 133 568 201 568C274 568 318 519 318 435C318 349 255 267 193 193C144 135 87 78 32 23V0H405C417 45 427 89 440 131L412 140Z" id="g113-51"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="480" vert-adv-y="480"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0135,0,0,-0.0135,27.746,0)"><path d="M153 550H386L412 615L406 623H120L82 318C104 327 142 338 184 338C294 338 347 275 347 187C347 112 305 39 221 39C160 39 119 71 97 89C88 97 80 96 71 90C59 80 50 67 49 57C48 45 52 36 66 23C80 9 123 -12 169 -12C221 -11 288 15 342 59C403 109 431 165 431 225C431 308 366 395 238 395C212 395 165 379 127 364L153 550Z" id="g113-54"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="480" vert-adv-y="480"></glyph.data></g></svg></td><td align="center">34.7</td></tr><tr class="table-tr"><td colspan="2"><hr class="tbody-hr"/></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

CPU time for the two methods under double frequency excitation.

International Journal of Rotating Machinery

tab5

Table 5

Table 5: Comparison of Common Methods in Dynamic Response Predictions of Rotor Systems with Malfunctions 